Saussure's "The Nature of Linguistic Sign" (Summary)

 

 The common understanding of language as merely a process of naming things is criticized for several reasons. Firstly, it assumes that pre-existing ideas exist before words, which is not always the case. Secondly, it doesn't clarify whether a word is purely a vocal expression or has psychological significance as well. Thirdly, it oversimplifies the process of linking a word to its corresponding thing.

 

However, this simplistic view does offer some insight by highlighting that a linguistic unit consists of two components: a concept and a sound-image. The sound-image is not just the physical sound itself but the impression it leaves on our senses, making it a psychological entity. When we speak or recite internally, we are engaging with these sound-images without necessarily moving our lips or tongue.

 

It's important to recognize that terms like "phonemes" should be reserved for spoken words only, as they imply vocal activity. Instead, we should refer to the sounds and syllables of a word, remembering that they represent the psychological impression associated with the word.

 

The linguistic sign consists of two parts: a signifier and a signified, which are closely linked and bring each other to mind. When we consider the meaning of a word like "arbor" in Latin, we are only concerned with the associations established by that language, ignoring other possibilities.

 

There's a terminological issue here: I refer to the combination of a concept and a sound-image as a sign, but commonly, "sign" is used to describe only the sound-image, such as the word "arbor." It's important to remember that "arbor" is called a sign because it represents the concept of "tree," so the idea of the sound-image implies the entire linguistic sign.

 

To eliminate confusion, it would be helpful to use different terms for the three key components involved. Saussure suggests keeping "sign" to represent the whole concept and replacing "concept" and "sound-image" with "signified" and "signifier," respectively. These new terms highlight the contrast between them and their role as parts of the whole.

 

The term "sign" remains unchanged because there isn't a better alternative in ordinary language. The linguistic sign, as defined, has two fundamental characteristics, which establish the basic principles for studying this subject.

2

The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign

The connection between the sound of a word and its meaning is completely random. When I say "sign," I mean the whole idea formed by combining the sound of a word with its meaning. So, I can simply state: language signs are random.

 

For example, The correspondence between a word and its sound has no inherent reason why it couldn't be represented by a different sequence of sounds. This is evident from the differences in languages; for instance, the word for "ox" is represented by different sounds on different sides of a border. While everyone agrees that language signs are arbitrary, recognizing the full extent of this principle takes time and effort. It affects many aspects of language study, even if its implications aren't immediately obvious.

Once semiology becomes a science, it might debate whether it should include natural signs like pantomime. However, its main focus will still be on systems based on the arbitrary nature of signs. Essentially, all forms of expression in society rely on collective behavior or convention.

 

For instance, even though polite gestures may seem natural, like when a Chinese person bows nine times to their emperor, they are actually governed by rules. It's these rules, not the gestures themselves, that dictate their use. Signs that are completely arbitrary, like language, best exemplify the semiological process. This is why linguistics, being the most complex and widespread system of expression, can serve as a model for other branches of semiology.

 

The term "symbol" is sometimes used to refer to the linguistic sign, or more specifically, what I'm calling the signifier here. However, this goes against Principle I. Symbols aren't entirely arbitrary; they carry some inherent meaning. For example, the symbol of justice, like a pair of scales, couldn't be replaced by just any other symbol, such as a chariot.

Let's talk about the word "arbitrary." When we say a linguistic sign is arbitrary, we don't mean that the speaker can freely choose any signifier they want. In reality, once a sign becomes accepted in a language community, individuals can't just change it however they please. What we mean is that the choice of the signifier is unmotivated—it doesn't have a natural connection with the signified.

 

Now, let's address two objections that could be raised against Principle I.

1 onomatopoeia.

 

Onomatopoeic words are ones that sound like the noises they represent, like "glug-glug" or "tick-tock." Some people might think these words show that the choice of sounds in language isn't always arbitrary. But actually, true onomatopoeic words are pretty rare, and they're often just approximate imitations of sounds.

 

For example, words like "fouet" (whip) or "glas" (knell) might sound like what they represent in French, but their origins show they weren't always like that. "Fouet" comes from the Latin word for "beech-tree," and "glas" comes from the Latin word for "sound of a trumpet." So, their current sounds are just a result of how language sounds have changed over time.

 

Even the more authentic onomatopoeic words are chosen somewhat randomly. Once they're part of the language, they go through the same changes as other words—like how "pigeon" comes from a Latin word that was originally an imitation of a pigeon's call.

 

So, even though onomatopoeic words might seem like they have a natural connection between sound and meaning, they actually end up being just as arbitrary as any other word in a language.

 

2. interjections,.

 

Interjections are words or sounds we use to express emotions or reactions, like "ouch" or "wow." Some people might think interjections prove that there's a natural connection between sound and meaning in language, but that's not really true.

 

If we look at interjections in different languages, we see they can be quite different. For example, the French word "aïe!" (ouch!) doesn't have an exact equivalent in English; instead, we say "ouch!" We also know that many interjections used to be words with specific meanings. For instance, the French interjection "diable!" (darn!) comes from the phrase "mort Dieu" (God's death).

 

So, even though interjections might seem like natural expressions of reality, they actually vary a lot between languages and often have historical origins that aren't related to their sounds.

 

Principle II: The Linear Nature of the Signifier

Let's talk about the characteristics of the signifier, which is the auditory aspect of language.

 

Firstly, the signifier, being auditory, unfolds over time. This means two things: (a) it represents a span, or a length of time, and (b) this span is measurable in a single dimension, like a line.

 

This might seem obvious, but it's actually really important. Auditory signifiers, like spoken words, can only be perceived over time, unlike visual signals which can convey information in multiple dimensions simultaneously.

 

When we write down words, we represent them as a sequence of symbols on a page, which reflects their sequential nature in time. Even when we stress or accent a syllable, it's still part of the same continuous flow of sound. So, even though it might seem like we're putting more emphasis on certain parts, it's all part of the same single flow of sound.